DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation of Endemic Bartram's Bass: Nesting Microhabitat Use and Spatial Distribution with Congeners in the Savannah River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 12-2018 Conservation of Endemic Bartram's Bass: Nesting Microhabitat Use and Spatial Distribution with Congeners in the Savannah River Basin Emily Elizabeth Judson Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Recommended Citation Judson, Emily Elizabeth, "Conservation of Endemic Bartram's Bass: Nesting Microhabitat Use and Spatial Distribution with Congeners in the Savannah River Basin" (2018). All Theses. 3255. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/3255 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSERVATION OF ENDEMIC BARTRAM'S BASS: NESTING MICROHABITAT USE AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION WITH CONGENERS IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Wildlife and Fisheries Biology by Emily Elizabeth Judson December 2018 Accepted by: Dr. Brandon Peoples, Committee Chair Dr. Troy Farmer Mrs. Jean Leitner ABSTRACT Bartram’s Bass Micropterus sp. cf cataractae is endemic to the Savannah River basin of South Carolina and Georgia. Bartram’s Bass is threatened by habitat alteration and hybridization with invasive Alabama bass (M. henshalli) and other non-native co- occurring congeners. This study aimed to identify reproductive habitat preference of this species, and factors contributing to its occurrence. In Chapter 1 we identified Bartram’s Bass nesting preference throughout the upper portion of its native range. In spring/summer 2017 and 2018, snorkel surveys were performed in tributaries to quantify nesting microhabitat use of Bartram’s Bass. Zig-zag transects were used to locate nests and to quantify habitat availability. Nesting microhabitat parameters were recorded at each nest detected, and eggs were collected for genetic analysis. Average velocity at the 39 pure Bartram’s Bass nests observed was 0.09 ± 0.02 m/s, SD, lower than average available velocity of 0.22 ± 0.01 m/s, SD (p= 0.0028). Average depth of nests was 0.70 ± 0.04 m, SD and was similar to those available 0.67 ± 0.02 m, SD (p= 0.6946). The substrates used in nests during both breeding years combined were primarily silt (36%), cobble (31%), and gravel (21%), whereas the most available substrates observed in transects were bedrock (23%) and cobble (23%) (P<0.0001). On average, nests were 1.84 ± 0.25 m from the nearest bank, and 4.67 ± 0.56 m from the nearest upstream flow influence. Differences between available and used habitat metrics indicate that velocity may be more important than depth or substrate when Bartram’s bass are selecting nest sites. While there is a relationship between substrate use and availability, we believe the main factor driving ii substrate use is velocity and that certain substrate types are likely a byproduct of selection for velocity. In Chapter 2 we determined the relative importance of abiotic factors and distance from reservoirs for predicting occurrence of Bartram’s Bass. From March to November of 2017 and 2018, individuals were collected from 160 sites across the upper Savannah River basin. Sites represented a gradient of key abiotic variables—watershed- and riparian-scale land use types, ecoregions, stream gradient, and elevation. Genetic analysis of 241 individuals from 50 sites revealed Bartram’s Bass were present at 33 sites, and hybrids were present at 21 sites. Conditional inference trees were used to predict the variables that drive Bartram’s Bass distribution. Forested land cover at the watershed scale was the most significant predictor of Bartram’s Bass presence (p=0.0236). Pure individuals preferred sites of greater than 75% forested cover (p<0.001). In less forested watersheds, there was higher probability of finding pure Bartram’s Bass at sites with greater watershed areas (p<0.001), and increased distance from reservoirs (p<0.001). Even when forested land cover was greater than 75% and stream gradients were low, sites closer to reservoirs were less likely to harbor pure fish (p<0.001). These results reflect the tradeoff between land cover and distribution for facilitating spread and hybridization of invasive fishes. iii DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to the memory of my grandfather, Thomas Edward Judson, who passed away while I was completing this degree (3/19/1924- 2/11/2017). A farmer, hunter, angler, trapper, and lover of all things outdoors- I can only hope to live a life as full as his. I know this work would have made him proud. I also dedicate this to my mother and father, Karen Hansen and Doug Judson, for instilling in me a passion for hard work, and for the outdoors; I would not be where I am today had it not been for your love and constant encouragement over the years. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you foremost to my advisor Dr. Brandon Peoples for accepting me as one of your first Master’s students, and for providing me the opportunity to study an amazing species. This research has challenged me in ways I never thought possible, and allowed me to learn and grow in ways I didn’t know I needed to. I appreciate your patience and tactful support throughout the research and writing process. Thanks to my committee for their support and guidance, Dr. Troy Farmer and Mrs. Jean Leitner. Thank you to all who made this research possible, especially those who provided funding. I am forever grateful for the assistance of my field technicians: Jon Blalock, Alex Michaeli, Wesley Moore, and Luke Bell, as well as the many undergraduates who helped with lab work through Creative Inquiry courses. Thank you to my fellow graduate students, Sam Silknetter, Josh Vine, and Lauren Stoczynski for providing support and laughs through what might have otherwise been stressful times. Immense thanks also to Matt Walker, Tanya Darden, and Kimberly Kanapeckas from the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) Hollings Marine Lab in Charleston, SC for processing all of my samples. The Clemson office of SCDNR also provided enormous field assistance which I am grateful for, and I would especially like to thank Mark Scott, Kevin Kubach, Drew Gelder, and Kenson Kanczuzewski for all the time and effort you put into my research. Finally, thank you to my siblings, parents, and grandparents- for shaping me into who I am, loving and supporting me, and inspiring me to pursue my passions relentlessly. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................ iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... viii GENERAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 CHAPTERS I. NESTING MICROHABITAT CHARACTERISTICS OF BARTRAM’S BASS........................................................................................................ 6 Introduction .............................................................................................. 6 Methods.................................................................................................. 10 Results .................................................................................................... 13 Discussion .............................................................................................. 20 II. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF BARTRAM’S BASS AND CONGENERS IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN ................................................. 25 Introduction ............................................................................................ 25 Methods.................................................................................................. 29 Results .................................................................................................... 34 Discussion .............................................................................................. 39 GENERAL CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 47 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 51 Appendix A: Supplemental Tables .............................................................. 51 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 55 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1 Table 1. Substrate categories and size ranges (mm) as derived from the Wentworth Scale (Wentworth 1922). .................................................... 12 1.2 Table 2. Linear regression model results for water velocity used at Bartram’s Bass nests and available in transects in the upper Savannah River in 2017 and 2018. ...............................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Parasites of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus Salmoides)

    Parasites of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus Salmoides)

    PARASITES OF LARGEMOUTH BASS (MICROPTERUS SALMOIDES) IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA By Daniel J. Troxel A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science Natural Resources, Fisheries November, 2010 ABSTRACT Parasites of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in northern California Daniel J. Troxel A total of fifty largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) were collected from Clear Lake, Lake Berryessa, Lake Sonoma, Trinity Lake and the Sacramento – San Joaquin River Delta. All fish were infected with at least one parasite, with the exception of one juvenile fish from Trinity Lake in which no parasites were found. The following parasites were observed in largemouth bass: Actinocleiudus unguis, Clavunculus bursatus, Clinostomum complanatum, Proteocephalus pearsei, Contracaecum sp., Hysterothylacium (?) sp., Spinitectus carolini, Camallanus sp., Neoechinorhynchus cylindratus, Myzobdella lugubris, Batracobdella phalera, Ergasilus centrarchidarum, and Argulus flavescens. In addition to these identified parasites, I also found an unidentified leech and Proteocephalus sp. plerocercoids, which could not be identified to species. All of these parasites have been previously reported infecting largemouth bass. Clinostomum complanatum, Contracaecum sp. and Myzobdella lugubris, have been previously reported in California; but these are the first known reports from largemouth bass in California. Actinocleidus unguis was the only parasite found that has previously been reported to infect largemouth bass in California. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first and foremost like to acknowledge my parents, without their support over the past two years this project would not have been possible. I would like to thank Dr. Gary Hendrickson for his contributions in the laboratory during the long process of identifying parasites.
  • Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide

    Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide

    Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide Abstracts for oral presentations and posters, 2010 Spring Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society Asheville, NC 1 Contributed Paper Oral Presentation Potential for trophic competition between introduced spotted bass and native shoal bass in the Flint River Sammons, S.M.*, Auburn University. Largemouth bass, shoal bass, and spotted bass were collected from six sites over four seasons on the Flint River, Georgia to assess food habits. Diets of all three species was very broad; 10 categories of invertebrates and 15 species of fish were identified from diets. Since few large spotted bass were collected, all comparisons among species were conducted only for juvenile fish (< 200 mm) and subadult fish (200-300 mm). Juvenile largemouth bass diets were dominated by fish in all seasons, mainly sunfish. Juvenile largemouth bass rarely ate insects except in spring, when all three species consumed large numbers of insects. In contrast, juvenile shoal bass diets were dominated by insects in all seasons but winter. Juvenile spotted bass diets were more varied- highly piscivorous in the fall and winter and highly insectivorous in spring and summer. Diets of subadult largemouth bass were similar to that of juvenile fish, and heavily dominated by fish, particularly sunfish. Similar to juveniles, diets of subadult shoal bass were much less piscivorous than largemouth bass. Crayfish were important components of subadult shoal bass diets in all seasons but summer. Insects were important components of shoal bass diets in fall and summer. Diets of subadult spotted bass were generally more piscivorous than shoal bass, but less than largemouth bass.
  • SPORT FISH of OHIO Identification DIVISION of WILDLIFE

    SPORT FISH of OHIO Identification DIVISION of WILDLIFE

    SPORT FISH OF OHIO identification DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 1 With more than 40,000 miles of streams, 2.4 million acres of Lake Erie and inland water, and 450 miles of the Ohio River, Ohio supports a diverse and abundant fish fauna represented by more than 160 species. Ohio’s fishes come in a wide range of sizes, shapes and colors...and live in a variety of aquatic habitats from our largest lakes and rivers to the smallest ponds and creeks. Approximately one-third of these species can be found in this guide. This fish identification guide provides color illustrations to help anglers identify their catch, and useful tips to help catch more fish. We hope it will also increase your awareness of the diversity of fishes in Ohio. This book also gives information about the life history of 27 of Ohio’s commonly caught species, as well as information on selected threatened and endangered species. Color illustrations and names are also offered for 20 additional species, many of which are rarely caught by anglers, but are quite common throughout Ohio. Fishing is a favorite pastime of many Ohioans and one of the most enduring family traditions. A first fish or day shared on the water are memories that last a lifetime. It is our sincere hope that the information in this guide will contribute significantly to your fishing experiences and understanding of Ohio’s fishes. Good Fishing! The ODNR Division of Wildlife manages the fisheries of more than 160,000 acres of inland water, 7,000 miles of streams, and 2.25 million acres of Lake Erie.
  • Red Clay Is Amazingly Sticky. Mix Three Inches of Rain with a Georgia Dirt Road Made out of the Stuff, and You Can Lose a Car in It

    Red Clay Is Amazingly Sticky. Mix Three Inches of Rain with a Georgia Dirt Road Made out of the Stuff, and You Can Lose a Car in It

    Red clay is amazingly sticky. Mix three inches of rain with a Georgia dirt road made out of the stuff, and you can lose a car in it. On the upside, I’ve found that most red-dirt roads in the South lead to out-of-the- way rivers, many with good fishing. Maybe that inaccessibility is why one of the region’s best game fishes remained unrecognized by science until 1999. That’s when Dr. James Williams and Dr. George Burgess, both researchers with the Florida Museum of Natural History, formally described the shoal bass for the first time. Though similar in appearance to their black bass cousins, shoal bass are in fact unique. They resemble an oversized cross between the red- eye bass (a smallish cousin of the largemouth bass) and a smallmouth. Their similarity to the red-eye led scientists to consider them part of the same species, until the advent of gene testing showed them to be different. Those scientists might have done well to talk to some southwest Background: Middle Georgia is famous for its red-dirt roads and, increasingly, its shoal bass fishery. Right: Catch a shoalie this size, and you’ll probably end up in a magazine spread. The average fish is about a pound. ZACH MATTHEWS 32 I AMERICAN ANGLER WWW.AMERICANANGLER.COM ROB ROGERS Backroad BULLIES Once an overlooked and unrecognized species, Georgia’s hard-fighting shoal bass are quickly becoming a destination warmwater target. by Zach Matthews WWW.AMERICANANGLER.COM MAY/JUNE 2010 I 33 Georgia old-timers, who as far back as the 1940s knew that only the Florida panhandle.
  • Tennessee Fish Species

    Tennessee Fish Species

    The Angler’s Guide To TennesseeIncluding Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesFish Published by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Cover photograph Paul Shaw Graphics Designer Raleigh Holtam Thanks to the TWRA Fisheries Staff for their review and contributions to this publication. Special thanks to those that provided pictures for use in this publication. Partial funding of this publication was provided by a grant from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Authorization No. 328898, 58,500 copies, January, 2012. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $.42 per copy. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is available to all persons without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age, dis- ability, or military service. TWRA is also an equal opportunity/equal access employer. Questions should be directed to TWRA, Human Resources Office, P.O. Box 40747, Nashville, TN 37204, (615) 781-6594 (TDD 781-6691), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office for Human Resources, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203. Contents Introduction ...............................................................................1 About Fish ..................................................................................2 Black Bass ...................................................................................3 Crappie ........................................................................................7

  • Lower Suwannee

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge Introduction Located along the Lower Suwannee Refuge was established on April 10, 1979, for the southern edge of the purpose of protecting, maintaining, This blue goose, and enhancing a beautiful and rare designed by "Ding" natural ecosystem. Purchase of the Darling, has become lands was made possible through the a symbol of the cooperative efforts of the U.S. Fish Rtfuge System. and Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, and Florida's Suwannee River Water Management District. Along the river and its tributary creeks, the habitat consists of majestic cypress trees and floodplain hardwood forests; scrub oak communities and pine plantations are found on the upland sites. From the mouth of the Suwannee River, the refuge fronts 26 miles of the Gulf of Mexico where the habitat changes to scenic tidal famous by Stephen marshes dotted with coastal islands. Each of Foster, bisects the refuge. these diverse vegetative 3 communities contributes to making Lower Suwannee Refuge one of the largest undeveloped river delta-estuarine systems in the United States. The overall goal of Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge is to provide conditions desirable to wildlife through scientific management. Specific objectives developed for the area include providing habitat and protection for endangered and threatened species as well as migrating birds cover photo: and resident wildlife. The refuge l.\Y liiclmitistm also provides opportunities for environmental education and wildlife photo (it lift: oriented recreation. Jerry Gamble Wildlife - types present on A constant influx of nutrients from Lower Suwannee £ the river system coupled with Refuge.
  • Endangered Species

    Endangered Species

    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
  • Comparison of Exploited and Unexploited Yellow Perch Perca ¯Avescens (Mitchill) Populations in Nebraska Sandhill Lakes

    Comparison of Exploited and Unexploited Yellow Perch Perca ¯Avescens (Mitchill) Populations in Nebraska Sandhill Lakes

    Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2001, 8, 533±542 Comparison of exploited and unexploited yellow perch Perca ¯avescens (Mitchill) populations in Nebraska Sandhill lakes C. P. PAUKERT & D. W. WILLIS Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA Abstract Exploitation can have a pronounced eect on ®sh populations. Yellow perch, Perca ¯avescens (Mitchill), populations in Nebraska Sandhill lakes were sampled in 1998 and 1999. Three of the 29 lakes containing yellow perch have been closed to ®shing for at least 10 years. Unexploited yellow perch populations had fast growth rates, but age structure was similar to exploited populations. For unexploited lakes combined, mortality and condition were not dierent from exploited lakes. However, one unexploited lake, Marsh Lake, had the fastest growth, highest proportion of older ®sh and highest condition of all populations sampled. This lake had low interspeci®c competition and high invertebrate abundance, which likely resulted in fast growth and high condition. However, size structure and growth were also related to lake productivity. Although exploitation may aect yellow perch populations, other factors (food availability, predators and lake productivity) also play an important role in structuring these populations. Regardless, these results indicate the potential of yellow perch in Nebraska Sandhill lakes given no exploitation. KEYWORDS: exploitation, Nebraska, Perca ¯avescens, productivity, yellow perch. Introduction Exploitation can substantially alter ®sh population characteristics. Unexploited populations typically have a high proportion of larger, older ®sh (Goedde & Coble 1981), which also may be in lower body condition (Van Den Avyle & Hayward 1999). Population size structure and abundance may be diminished soon after a lake is open to angling (Redmond 1974; Goedde & Coble 1981), which has been attributed to high harvest of naõÈ ve ®sh.
  • Guadalupe Bass Micropterus Treculii (Vaillant & Bocourt, 1874)

    Guadalupe Bass Micropterus Treculii (Vaillant & Bocourt, 1874)

    American Fisheries Society Symposium 82:55–60, 2015 © 2015 by the American Fisheries Society Guadalupe Bass Micropterus treculii (Vaillant & Bocourt, 1874) STEPHEN G. CURTIS* Aquatic Station, Department of Biology, Texas State University 601 University Drive, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA JOSHUAH S. PERKIN Division of Biology, Kansas State University 116 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA PRESTON T. BEAN Department of Natural Resources Management, Texas Tech University 254 Red Raider Lane, Junction, Texas 76849, USA MARIO L. SULLIVAN AND TIMOTHY H. BONNER Aquatic Station, Department of Biology, Texas State University 601 University Drive, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA Taxonomic Status Guadalupe Bass Micropterus treculii diverged from northeastern ancestral Micropterus (Conner and Suttkus1986) approximately 4.1–5.7 million years ago during the late Miocene or early Pliocene (Near et al. 2003, 2005). The species was originally described by Cope (1880) as the Texas (Johnson Fork of the Llano River) version of Florida Bass M. floridanus, differing slightly in some morphometric and meristic counts from its Florida counterpart. Since that time, Guadalupe Bass have undergone sev- eral redescriptions, including Dioplites treculii (Vaillant and Bocourt 1883), M. nuecensis var. treculii (Vaillant and Bocourt 1883), M. salmoides (Jordan and Gilbert 1886, Evermann and Kendall 1894), M. pseudaplites (Hubbs 1927), M. punctulatus punctulatus (Hubbs and Bailey 1940), M. p. treculii (Hubbs and Bailey 1942), M. treculi (Jurgens and Hubbs 1953; Hubbs 1954), and its current nomenclature M. treculii (Nelson et al. 2004). Johnson et al. (2001) determined that the sister taxa of Guadalupe Bass is Spotted Bass M. punctulatus based on mitochondrial DNA analyses.
  • Alabama Bass (Micropterus Henshalli) Ecological Risk Screening Summary

    Alabama Bass (Micropterus Henshalli) Ecological Risk Screening Summary

    1 Larry Hogan, Governor | Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Secretary Alabama Bass (Micropterus henshalli) Ecological Risk Screening Summary Joseph W. Love, October 2020 [Maryland Department of Natural Resources] 1. Background and Description Alabama bass (Micropterus henshalli) is one of at least twelve recognized temperate black basses indigenous to the freshwater rivers and lakes of North America. It is an aggressive species that generally does not grow as big as largemouth bass, can rapidly become abundant when introduced into an ecosystem, competes with other black bass for food, and can genetically pollute populations of smallmouth bass (M. dolomieu) and largemouth bass (M. salmoides), as well as other species of black bass (e.g., Shoal Bass, Spotted Bass). Because of its fighting ability, anglers from black bass fishing clubs have illegally introduced Alabama bass to Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia waters. It has been introduced by government agencies in Texas and California, and possibly abroad in South Africa. Where introduced, the species has not been eradicated, though harvest may be encouraged. Anglers have debated the merits of a control program dedicated to Alabama bass because some enjoy fishing for the species, while others recognize the problems it poses to other black bass species. Alabama bass has not been reported in Maryland but there is Photo: Image courtesy of concern anglers could introduce the species into Maryland. Matthew A. Williams, posted Additionally, out-of-state suppliers might unwittingly sell on iNaturalist. Alabama bass, which look similar to largemouth bass, to Marylanders. Alabama bass was a subspecies of spotted bass and was widely referred to as Alabama spotted bass.
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
  • Fine Structure of the Retina of Black Bass, Micropterus Salmoides (Centrarchidae, Teleostei)

    Fine Structure of the Retina of Black Bass, Micropterus Salmoides (Centrarchidae, Teleostei)

    Histol Histopathol (1999) 14: 1053-1065 Histology and 001: 10.14670/HH-14.1053 Histopathology http://www.hh.um.es From Cell Biology to Tissue Engineering Fine structure of the retina of black bass, Micropterus salmoides (Centrarchidae, Teleostei) M. Garcia and J. de Juan Department of Biotechnology, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain Summary. The structure of light- and dark-adapted 1968), 4) regular cone mosaics (Wagner, 1978), 5) the retina of the black bass, Micropterus salmoides has been existence of a well developed retinal tapetum in studied by light and electron microscopy. This retina nocturnal and bottom-living species (Wagner and Ali, lacks blood vessels at all levels. The optic fiber layer is 1978), 6) presence of foveae or areas with an increase in divided into fascicles by the processes of Muller cells photoreceptors and other neurons (Wagner, 1990), and 7) and the ganglion cell layer is represented by a single row a marked synaptic plasticity as is demonstrated by the of voluminous cells. The inner nuclear layer consists of formation of spinules (Wagner, 1980) during light two layers of horizontal cells and bipolar, amacrine and adaptation and their disappearance during dark­ interplexiform cells. In the outer plexiform layer we adaptation, and others. In summary, these features observed the synaptic terminals of photoreceptor celis, demonstrate the importance of vision in the mode of life rod spherules and cone pedicles and terminal processes and survival of the species. of bipolar and horizontal cells. The spherules have a Micropterus salmoides, known as black bass, is a single synaptic ribbon and the pedicles possess multiple member of the family Centrarchidae (Order Perciformes) synaptic ribbons.